War - What The Hell Is It Good For - Page 6

"Without 9/11, do you really think America could have destroyed Iraq and Afganistan?"

Nope - I don't think so - like I said 9/11 forced us to do the right thing - forced us to stop being isolationist cowards - forced us to act like the worlds superpower and to take responsibility for that role - forced to stop turning a blind eye to islamo-fascist attacks on our people and infrastructures here and abroad. However it has not given us carte blanche to do whatever we wish as history is clearly revealing.

"Note, I said *citizens* as well as government. "

No initially you said 'state' only. And every nation has citizens that funds terrorists organizations. So there can be no hypocrisy there.

"And the gov did fund the Islamic Mujahideen in Afghanistan. "

You are damn right we did and they were not terrorists but Afghan nationals fighting against their Soviet military oppressors. Are you actually saying that the West shouldn't have supported the Mujahideen?

"So terrorism is OK so long as it spreads your values? Bin Laden would agree with you"

That's not what I said at all - what I said is that when you are in the midst of a cold war with an extremely powerful enemy and they are setting up puppet governments in your backyard it is right to fund those that would defeat them - that we did and the Contras defeated the Soviets and now there is a democracy so history bore out that we took proper actions.

Like I said an apple is not an orange. Your comparisons simply do not hold up to historical and intellectual scrutiny.

Completely hypocrisy!

Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban are terrorists but Mujahideen and Contras are nationalists.

Please. Lets simplify the vocabulary and stop using the word terrorism. It is an charged and meaningless term which has been succesfully boogified by the Bush admin.

No you are being the hypocrite - you are saying things that I know you cant believe - you are suggesting that the US/UK cant fight terrorist regimes now because they supported the Afghans in their revolt against Soviet domination when I'm sure you were for such support. Can I be wrong?

I never said that Iraqi insurgents were all terrorists - some are foreign terrorists and some are national insurgents.

I agree with you about the word terrorism. Bush didn't boogify it though - he used it because the alternatives were, from his perspective, too dangerous and could hurt his cause. I disagree with Bush though - call a spade a spade - say we are fighting wahhabism - say we are fighting islamo-fascists - say we are fighting baathism.

Terrorism, in its purest meaning, is not always a bad tactic and one I would employ if I were an insurgent fighting some evil occupier.

What is terrorist to you, may be a freedom fighter to someone else.
Keep that in mind, it's crucial to see from another's perspective instead of pulling out an Uzi and blazing the hell out of them because they have a beard or they look suspicious, or you just don't like them.

Xris, another thing needed to be kept in mind is that an election doesn't always equate to a free election.

Another point is that in the case of the Sandinistas, actually a former Sandinistan was the first elected leader, followed closely by the president or whatever who was also a former sandinistan in rule at the time of the elections, he almost won.

Don't forget that our support was all very illegal, and has been linked to the crack epidemic of the 80's (whether true or not), with the drug and gun running. As well as the death of innocents through psychological warfare, america's terrorism, and death squads.

And about the Sandinistas as well, from what I've read they were legitimate to begin with, fighting against an oppressive ruler Somoza or whoever, but for whatever reasons, greed, pressure from financiers (russians), or just the continuous fighting from those who didn't like having their stolen wealth taken from them, they began their less than favorable ruling methods.

Its funny you should mention puppet regimes, a problem you should probably be more wary of in the day of America's new age of conquering.

Like I have treid to impress upon you before the American perspective was concerned with Soviet puppet regimes and funded those that would negate Soviet influence in the region. Histoy reveals that we were right and the evil empire collapsed ushering in a new era of liberal democracy around the globe.

"Its funny you should mention puppet regimes, a problem you should probably be more wary of in the day of America's new age of conquering."

Actually if you read the news then you would know that this is far less a problem today, under Republican rule, than in times past. You should be grateful that Bush is president.

"Actually if you read the news then you would know that this is far less a problem today, under Republican rule, than in times past. You should be grateful that Bush is president."

"THE" news, just like "THE" history books contain very conflicting opinions perspectives and even claimed facts. I do read news, and I hear a lot of different things.

Whoever "THE" news is.

History has shown that despotic rulers are a problem, not communism or even those who would be considered terrorists fighting occupying forces like you said you would.

History has shown that propaganda, lies, and secrecy have led to no one really knowing what history is true. And that stands true today, whatever news we listen to tends to dictate our view of reality, history as its made.

You seem to trust every source of your information, I do not, I have learned that humans lie and take that into account.

Do you think there were any problems with our election?

"You seem to trust every source of your information, I do not, I have learned that humans lie and take that into account. "

I do not trust every source of information. I am highly dubious of most of your 'facts' for example. I did trust the news accounts showing millions voting in Afghanistan and Iraq. I did trust the news accounts showing the orange revolution in Ukraine. I did trust the news accounts showing the thousands of Lebanese protesters that brought down the Syrian puppet government yesterday. I do trust the news accounts that showed Saudis voting for the first time and I trust the accounts that reported that women may be allowed to vote in the next election - but I do not trust that the Saudis will keep that promise. I do trust the news that reported that Egypt will allow a real presidential election but I dont trust that Egypt will allow it to be fair.

"Do you think there were any problems with our election?"

Humans are imperfect beings so of course there will be problems with anything that humans do or are involved in. Do I think Bush stole the election = absolutely not. Do I think the democrats stole the governors election in Washington = absolutely yes.

Do you trust the account of some 100k dead in Iraq due to American intervention?

Or of the degeneration of the state and the rule of Warlords in Afganistan?

I'm not saying its all bad. I applaud developments in Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt are all moving towards democracy. Bush may have been right. Bush's record is far from perfect, he has abused the human rights of alleged terrorists and he has run amok in two nations and failed in restoring order in the chaotic void left by destroying their states'.

He is making it exceedingly hard for me to believe he hsa good intentions, and you should recognise that your faith in him is just that, faith. Because your nationalism is based on faith in God, a God who has put America in this world to spread the American way of doing things. That's fine, but I think it limits your views, you do not question authority because of your faith.

"Bush's record is far from perfect, he has abused the human rights of alleged terrorists "

Bush has done no such thing. Did you read the account of the Russian held in Guantanamo that said life was better for him there than it was living in Russia? Some prisoners were mistreated and they are being punished but none of their mistreatments was ordered by Bush - it was done by morally imperfect soldiers.

"he has run amok in two nations and failed in restoring order in the chaotic void left by destroying their states'."

Well if he had a magic wand I'm sure he would use it - but such things take time and Bush is following a process that should accomplish what you want. Has it been perfect? No. Has his admin made mistakes? Of course. They aren't God and will make mistakes. But like you said: "Bush may have been right" and the reason you are willing to concede this is because of the incredible and positive changes that are occurring in the region.

I do recognize that it is faith that I have in him because we share the same desire and hold the same rationale about fighting this war. However I do disagree with things Bush has done as I've already indicated.

However I do not subscribe to the idea that "God... put America in this world to spread the American way of doing things".

Who decided the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are not POWs? The Bush Admin! They are being denied their rights as human beings and Bush is not behaving in a civilized manner. Its this sort of flaunting of human rights which led to Abu Graib.

"Well if he had a magic wand I'm sure he would use it - but such things take time and Bush is following a process that should accomplish what you want.

"Has it been perfect? No. Has his admin made mistakes? Of course. They aren't God and will make mistakes."
Such big mistakes make me think his advisors are incompetent (from interviews, Bush himself has clearly always been ignorant, making him largely irrelevent in decision making).

"But like you said: "Bush may have been right" and the reason you are willing to concede this is because of the incredible and positive changes that are occurring in the region."
100K dead in Iraq is not positive. The threat of an Iraqi civil war is not positive. A peace process in Palestine take 40 is positive, but I'm not holding my breath.

Attacking an irrelevent WMDless regime while Iran and North Korea both get nukes is not positive.

I don't know what is happening in the White House, your trust in GWB and his administration is unwarranted. He may be right, but you seem far far too certain of this. Is it because God is on his side?

"Who decided the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay are not POWs? The Bush Admin! They are being denied their rights as human beings and Bush is not behaving in a civilized manner. Its this sort of flaunting of human rights which led to Abu Graib."

No the Geneva Accord and previous law decided it. To be a POW you must represent a nation and wear their uniform. Otherwise they are terrorists and, since they are not US citizens, do not have such rights.

"Such big mistakes make me think his advisors are incompetent (from interviews, Bush himself has clearly always been ignorant, making him largely irrelevent in decision making)."

There have been no big mistakes - only small ones - the big mistakes have come from Europe and Canada. And if you believe Bush is ignorant and not the one making the big decisions then you are more deceived than I had imagined. Your criteria for judging him is so sophomoric. Yes Bush is not the most articulate speaker - so what? Is that the only criteria for intelligence? You yourself acknowledge that Bush may be right - how could such an idiot have been right and all those brilliant articulate Europeans have been wrong? lol

"100K dead in Iraq is not positive. The threat of an Iraqi civil war is not positive. A peace process in Palestine take 40 is positive, but I'm not holding my breath. "

I don't know how many Iraqis have died in Iraq but lets say you are right. Do you know how many Americans died at the battle of Gettysburg? How about D-Day? No threat is positive but the threat of a civil war is just that - a threat - unless it happens lets not accuse Bush of causing it.

Please tell me - do you think there would have been elections in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and soon to be Egypt and the resignation of the Syrian govt in Lebanon and the dismantling of weapon projects in Libya had it not been for Bush?

"Attacking an irrelevent WMDless regime while Iran and North Korea both get nukes is not positive. "

No its not positive and the blame is largely Europe's and Clintons for their inaction and actual assistance to those nations. However, what do you propose that Bush do? Id love to hear how you would handle it!

"I don't know what is happening in the White House, your trust in GWB and his administration is unwarranted. He may be right, but you seem far far too certain of this. Is it because God is on his side?"

My trust is unwarranted? That's the same thing Europeans said about Reagan when they laughed and mocked him for calling for the Berlin Wall to come down. I don't really trust the Europeans when it comes to making predictions or understanding human nature.

Is God on Bush's side? I pray so. I believe far more so than on Chirac or Gerhard Schroder or Saddam or Osama's side.

"but none of their mistreatments was ordered by Bush - it was done by morally imperfect soldiers."

This is not something we can know, for a few reasons, one, how soldiers are trained affects how they act, two, how they are supervised affects how they act, three, who is culpable in military justice is different than basic civilian laws, soldiers follow orders.

Yes bad apples occur in any situation, however, the abuse is to detainees, some of which ARE american citizens, is not random nor isolated, its very widespread actually, and this only accounts for the actual operations in facilities known about. UK soldiers are going to court over the exact same torture techniques and abuses, with pictures of naked sexually posed detainees and everything.

This is where its very important to keep in mind who has access to what information, we have nothing but what the media tells us, your trust in the media on so many issues mentioned have very different stories being told than most independant media and other eye witnesses of the same events.

Such as voter turn out in Iraq.

I have no idea why you would have such faith in Bush election(s), people were found guilty after the fact in 2000 for the willfull disenfranchisement issue. Which would have given the election to Gore, again. Let alone the results that I've heard little about in referrence to this recent election's irregularities.

Then you can so easily speak of belief in Democrats doing so. I think they both do it, and that the system is awash with fraud, please don't limit your skepticism.

I seriously don't think we put near enough into keeping our own elections legitimate. Electronic machines with a shaky backround, known to be rife with problems and hacker accessibility, given to people to take home, WITH NO PAPER TRAIL OR POSSIBILITY OF RECOUNT??!!!

What the fuck is that? Its a bad joke is what it is, they spend so much time money and effort telling us how important it is but can't even get their shit together to do it right. Let alone keep corruption (which is conspiracy too, cool-aid fans) out of it.

Your idea that someone is willing to fight corruption with corruption, terrorism with terrorism, for the greater good is both disturbing and lacking in credibility.

The lesser of two evil march needs to be replaced with some not so evil and corrupt options.

So, we have wars on terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, drugs, you name it (as long as you are poor, your on the list), any war on corporate crime and goverment corruption coming any time soon?

Maybe we should go after root causes instead of symptoms. Or are we just gonna go with the notion that not all CEO's and Government representatives are bad and thats good enough. I don't hear so much of that leniancy with the other wars on this or that.

"No the Geneva Accord and previous law decided it. To be a POW you must represent a nation and wear their uniform. Otherwise they are terrorists and, since they are not US citizens, do not have such rights."
Yada yada yada. You can twist the rules all you want, you can fight against the spirit of the law. But then I think that all dignified human beings have a right to fight you to protect their rights.

"Please tell me - do you think there would have been elections in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and soon to be Egypt and the resignation of the Syrian govt in Lebanon and the dismantling of weapon projects in Libya had it not been for Bush?"
Which is why I have conceded that Bush may have been right. I still think you should remove Bush's cock from your mouth as he is still an ignorant SOB. Have you listened to interviews before the 2000 election? He couldn't even NAME the leaders of Taiwan, Pakistan or India. Not exactly unimportant places.

"I have no idea why you would have such faith in Bush election(s), people were found guilty after the fact in 2000 for the willfull disenfranchisement issue. Which would have given the election to Gore, again. Let alone the results that I've heard little about in referrence to this recent election's irregularities. "

No this shows you have no clue regarding the law. The Democrats were found guilty of trying to use the courts to overturn the election. Bush won the state of Florida on all counts - even on the media accounts done after the fact. Because democrats only care about power they chose to try to steal the election by having hand recounts in selected democratic counties so they could skew the numbers. It was a sham and a disgrace to this nation and an embarrassment worldwide. Gore lost every court case in the Florida courts except for the ones were the all democrat supreme court over-ruled the lower courts- some of which had democrat judges. It is amazing that you supported a near coup!

"WITH NO PAPER TRAIL OR POSSIBILITY OF RECOUNT??!!! "

You cant have a paper count because it opens Pandora's box and leads to numerous corruptions that you apparently haven't imagined. The truth is that in the last century democrats have been historical proven to be masters at stealing elections - from JFK to LBJ to Gore to the last election in Washington state. The reason democrats are willing to go to such means is because they only care ultimately about one thing - power. And they will do anything to gain it or maintain it.

"any war on corporate crime and government corruption coming any time soon? "

Where in the hell have you been? What do you think we just went through - what happened to Martha Stewart or the execs at MCI and Enron? We tried to impeach the most corrupt government official since Nixon and the democrats refused to have a serious trial and refused to remove him from office. Where did you stand on Clinton's removal from office?